I guess in principle (or in theory, if you'd prefer) i would be tempted to say that privacy trumps the pragmatics of efficient network maintenance, but i'm not so sure that I get the whole technical challenge of actually keeping the stuff working ... so.... If i may venture a question, at the risk of exposing my ignorance: what if something needs be dealt with and you can't reach a responsible person. In the end, depending on the gravity of the situation of course, won't the unreachable party be the one ultimately penalized by the stabilizing actions of network operators? And if so, and granted that anonymity does indeed put pressure on network operators, isn't the balance achieved one where network operators have a hard(er) job but where anonymous registrants mostly support the risk of potentially drastic actions by network operators striving to keep things going? Because frankly whois rules cannot be made to easily protect every person protected by a restraining order, that would be overreaching, in my opinion. Privacy, in a twisted but important sense, give us a "right" to misbehave in my opinion. It's what gives value to good behavior. Any system that makes it practically impossible to misbehave (think cars with built-in police radars) sap the value of good behavior right out of life. I believe this argument was made often ¯ whether from a moral, legal, political or economical point of view ¯ under the rubric of "liberty". Tentatively, Nicolas On 7/21/2011 8:17 AM, Timothe Litt wrote: > Although I support most of the proposed comments, I disagree with > recommendation 14.